Microsoft Patent Deal Could Leave Novell Behind 246
robbyyy writes to mention a Computer Business Review Online article about commentary from Bruce Perens to Novell, about their recent deal with Microsoft. He argues that the company should quickly turn its back on the deal, because Novell risks being left behind by open source progress. From the article: "While Linux creator Linus Torvalds has previously stated that the Linux kernel will remain on the GPL v2 license, much of the code that makes up a complete Linux distribution is owned by the FSF, which intends to re-license all its code to GPL v3 as soon as it is completed in early 2007. 'In the face of these changes, Novell will probably be stuck with old versions of the software, under old licenses, with Novell sustaining the entire cost and burden of maintaining that software,' Perens wrote, adding that Novell faces a choice of sticking with Microsoft and being left behind, or turning its back on the patent deal."
Scam. It's a scam. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the time line:
* Novell and Microsoft shake hands on an exclusive agreement to create better cross-compatibility between their software.
* After the agreement is signed, Microsoft does a 180 and publicly states that the crux of the deal was really Novell admitting Linux violates Microsoft's IP and this was a license agreement.
* Novell is saying 'WTF? Where did this come from? You scammed us!!1!!'
* Microsoft looks like a hero to the DOJ for saying 'We're not evil, see? Novell admits Linux violates our IP and they now license it from us. Here's the contract!'
I'm sure Microsoft will somehow defend the contract by connecting to their Xenix OS they sold through Tandy in the early 1980's.
The agreement was nothing more than the most expensive anti-Linux PR campaign ever conceived. Novell and Bruce Perens aren't the bad guys here, they just got scammed (Please, for the sake of the future of Novell, please don't forward Bruce any emails that state the Prince of Nigeria needs some cash to escape the country).
This may also give Microsoft legal footing to attempt to go after Red Hat if they really want to. All they have to do is bring up the Novell deal in court to make themselves look like angels.
This is just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary...
Re:Scam. It's a scam. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if that happens, I guess Novell's lawyers will be the first ones out of job...
On a darker note, this is the thing we've all been predicting. And so far, none of us have been proven wrong.
On the other hand, I don't see what kind of an idiot - except the ones sitting in my country's courtrooms[1] - would accept such a contract as proof of any kind of license or IP violation. The only proof is code; this kind of contract can only mean "if any possible violation existed, we've agreed not to make a fuss
Re:Scam. It's a scam. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I don't see what kind of an idiot - except the ones sitting in my country's courtrooms[1]
This is meant to be tried in the media not the courts. While you may not have been able to find an idiot capable of believing this kind of distorted "logic" the media has proven themselves quite capable.
Re:Scam. It's a scam. (Score:4, Interesting)
From what I've gathered - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - Microsoft gave money to Novell, not the other way around.
While it can generate bad publicity - and it has already generated pretty bad publicity among Linux users in general - as long as it remains in the media alone, we'll be fine.
We've been immersed in FUD ever since Microsoft stopped ignoring Linux (first, they ignore you...); it has never stopped Linux before. Slowed down, yes; stopped, no.
Besides, with Vista and possible further incarnations of Windows restricting user rights more and more, Microsoft will have enough bad publicity on its own.
And Linux will find a way into many a user's home as a way to run all the Good Old Games(TM) - a friend of mine, who claims Linux Is Not Ready For Desktop And Won't Be For Ten More Years, has a Linux partition from which he runs old games. He says DOS emulation under Linux is so much better, and who am I to contradict him.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft did a really shitty thing. If there'd never been a reason to be suspicious of them before this is it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(IMHO) From what I've seen, it looks like Novell got sucked into this Microsoft deal without knowing the real purpose of this deal: to discredit Linux.
* Novell is saying 'WTF? Where did this come from? You scammed us!!1!!'
You may well be right, but, erm, isn't it Novell management's job to have worked out all the angles on this? It's not like this is some newbie company that knows nothing about Microsoft. Novell have tangled [eweek.com] directly with Microsoft [wikipedia.org] and indirectly with their proxies [wikipedia.org] before on man
Re: (Score:2)
SCO is almost gone, long live SCOvell.
It's FUD, but I can understand Novell signing (Score:2)
MicroSoft cannot use Xenix as a defense, as that was among the IP that became SCO. (I helped do remote driver debugging for the initial Xenix/386 releases on one of the first IBM PS/2 model 80's. :) )
Novell got cash. Needed cash.
Perens claim that Novell will be stuck maintaining old code makes no sense. Why would Novell have an issue and RedHat not? Indemnification deals are customer insurance at most, and do not affect the actual IP ownership.
If it turned out that MicroSoft had a valid patent vi
Re:It's FUD, but I can understand Novell signing (Score:4, Interesting)
He is saying that the GPL v3 will explicitly disallow the kind of contractual arrangement Novell used to end-run around the GPL v2. When v3 comes out, Novell will have to either abandon the contract, or they will not be able to use code licensed under v3.
Since all of the FSF foundations tools will move to v3, and most of the toolchain for linux is owned by the FSF, Novell will be left behind with old versions of a lot of the software in their distribution. They will have to fork the code base at the point the license changes and maintain v2 implementations of those tools themselves. That will be a lot of work and the Novell versions of the tools will probably end up divergent from the FSF versions of those tools.
This will make SuSE less interoperable with other open source software and less attractive as a platform on which to build your infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I dont think we're talking about the same point from Perens. I was referring to why he says they might have to maintain gpl v2 forks on their own and why that would become a problem.
The indemnification contract between Microsoft and Novell does not alter any GPLv2 software. It does not change the ownership of the software. It does not determine whether or not the distro software has any IP violations that would lead to it being yanked from GPL status.
Per
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Little things like gcc/g++, glibc, all the unix user space tools,
Without the FSF stuff Linux would not exist - there's just be a kernel with nothing to run on top of it. It'd be easier to ditch Linus's kernel and replace it with something else (BSD, HURD, etc) than to replace the rest of it.
Re:Scam. It's a scam. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even though GNU deserves large parts of the credit, they don't deserve all the credit.
Re:Scam. It's a scam. (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF has reimplemented quite a bit of the BSD userspace tools. Most Linux distributions use the GNU versions instead of the BSD ones. Combine that with the fact that the FSF has been very savvy about getting developers to sign papers turning over their copyrights and the FSF is far and away the largest copyright holder in any given Linux distribution. Novell can pretend that the FSF's opinion doesn't matter, but it does.
Add in the fact that the Samba developers are very upset with Novell and Novell is in serious trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Go read the changelogs. You will be surprised.
While writing a compiler and a little unix utility might not be rocket science, writing a good compiler and reliable, solid, standard compliant little unix itilities is a bit more difficult than what you seem to think.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Damage is Done (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the question is who's leaving them behind. Let's take, for instance, the SAMBA team that urged Novell to reconsider [slashdot.org]. Why was it the SAMBA team? Well, probably because people on both sides saw this deal as an tacit acknowledgement that several open source projects infringe on Microsoft intellectual property. SAMBA would be a pretty easy target for Microsoft, in my opinion and that's why they voiced their concerns so quickly--I'm sure more will follow once the realization hits the entire community when the precise details of the deal are released. I've seen figures anywhere from $100-450 million USD to be accepted by Novell from Microsoft. Why? Hopefully we'll find out.
Interestingly enough, the finest details I can find on this deal come from Novell's Website [novell.com] with the thought provoking title, "NOVELL & MICROSOFT COLLABORATE--CUSTOMERS WIN." Once these details surface, after the FSF's lawyer is done picking them over with a fine toothed comb, then I think we'll know who's still with Novell and who's 'left them behind.'
I'm going to say right now that--pending the GPLv2 allowing this deal--projects feel genuinely threatened by Microsoft lawsuits will alter their licenses to exclude potential deals regarding their software like the one Novell made. If this deal goes through, what we'll most likely see is SuSE being pretty much the basic Linux kernel and not a whole lot more except (as the summary states) the frozen old releases of software. Ironically, the eventual evolution of the Linux kernel will probably render these releases unusable which will mean at some point Novell will have to stick with an old edition of Linux or make the upgrades and patches itself to the rest of the software. I would bet that Open Office and a lot of the Windows-y environments (like KDE & Gnome) might adjust to this and move away from SuSE just to be safe. After all, these agreements that give you protection against Microsoft litigation based on intellectual property is the first step in Microsoft's eventual licensing of the software you've written.
If this deal hasn't been signed in blood, then I would urge every project that would jump ship to publicly notify Novell they will (the only one I know of is SAMBA--there must be more). But if the ink has dried on the contract and they're checking it against the GPLv2, I fear the damage is already done. Look to the future and hope the GPLv3 that's eventually ratified stops things like this from happening.
Even if this fails under the GPLv2 and the deal never goes down, will you ever be able to look at Novell the same way again? I'm not sure I will.
Suse is dying -- netcraft confirms it (Score:2)
Suse
LiVES no longer supports Suse, since Novell signed a deal with a certain well known company.
If you are using Suse, please consider moving to another distribution.
--EndQuote--
Just downloaded Lives as I wanted to play with video editing and noticed the above. Pretty fast update.
Pretty silly... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's from the LiVES website. They ask for donations. Last I checked Suse was still a version of linux, so anyone that's donated to LiVES and uses Suse should still get support. It's fair. I have the choice to use whatever version of Linux I want and if I donated money, I should get support any way.
Re:Suse is dying -- netcraft confirms it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Damage is Done (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah I think Samba might be a target here. If Novell contributes code to Samba, and Novell says that the code they conrtibuted was licensed from MS, then Samba can only be used by companies that are indemnified by MS. Remember that part of this deal is about interoperability, and Samba is a big part of that.
Another target id Mono. It's probably a good idea to avoid that platform altogether, since its likely only MS approved linux distros will be allowed to run apps developed for Mono. Of course its just as likely mono will remain free. But the worst case scenario is going to scare a lot of developers, making mono a dead platform.
I think Perens is right. As long as this deal is in effect, everything Novell does will be tainted. No Open Source project should accept any code from Novell until they cancel this deal. It's good to see that the Samba team gets it. Though I think it's likely this will kill Mono.
No Vell Is Left Behind? (Score:2)
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm a recent grad-ewe-et of the American school system so I don't know any better. I mean, I know what it's like to be in a "no child left behind" school system: it means that all of us were better than average when we grad-ewe-etted. My math teacher explained this to us in a really neat way in between his lectures on Intelligent Design: he drew something he called the Gaussian Distribution on a sheet of clear plastic, then folded it in the middle so it had two right hand tails and
Re: (Score:2)
If this deal goes through, what we'll most likely see is SuSE being pretty much the basic Linux kernel and not a whole lot more except (as the summary states) the frozen old releases of software. Ironically, the eventual evolution of the Linux kernel will probably render these releases unusable which will mean at some point Novell will have to stick with an old edition of Linux or make the upgrades and patches itself to the rest of the software.
Not necessarily. If they weren't able to use current GNU tools, there's always BSD. While, IMHO, the GNU tools are nicer the BSD tools are good and very mature. They could also write better version of, say, Samba with Microsoft's help as no reverse engineering would be necessary.
Act fast! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not by default. You will also agree that Gnome receives more "love" from Novell than KDE, though KDE is more functional than Gnome by default.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Has more functions" != "is more functional". Not for all classes of users.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, but one thing that bugs me with Gnome is the fact that I cannot type or paste in the file location dialog at all! I cannot even paste say, a PDF URL into any application that uses the Gnome file selector and expect the system to fire up the appropriate application. KDE and Windows do this by default.
Re: (Score:2)
Ctrl+L, this is consistent throughout Gnome. IIRC the next gtk version will have this enabled by default
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't quite true, I used Gnome by preference back around KDE1...but not since they removed the menu editor.
Re: (Score:2)
The Google Connection (Score:2, Interesting)
NovWinLux (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:NovWinLux (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An interesting proposition. But given how long it takes Microsoft to build software, and their track record at building *good* software, I would not worry much about this happening. What you described would take a few years to put together, and by then Novell will be long forgotten and out of date.
This is Microsoft we're talking about here. The "MS/Linux" software won't have to actually /work/ (as in, improve interop between GNU/Linux systems and Windows systems) in order to work (as in, perform the function Microsoft have designed this strategy to accomplish.) That's also what I expect Microsoft to do. See the story the other day about Ballmer saying "most Linux users haven't licenses our IP properly", most posters took it to imply SCO-like legal threats against GNU and Linux distributors.
This loo
Re: (Score:2)
Where exactly did you see a CIO or semi-retarded mid level manager that could say an OS "works well with Windows" because you can run Direct X applications (mostly entertainment apps) on it ?!
Even if it
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, the idea is to be able to pitch this as "Microsoft Approved Linux". That way, the paranoid CIO who doesn't want to go down the Linux route for fear of patent infringement or what have you will likely be prepared to sanction Linux - as long as it's SuSE.
Re:NovWinLux...Since When...? (Score:2)
Since when has Microsoft developed and sold anything that "Just Works"? Now if we were talking about Apple...
How can the GPL v3 change this (Score:2)
Novell is not giving their customers any rights beyond those Novell or anybody else has. If there is a valid MS patent, suddenly nobody has the right to distribute or use the code.
THe only thing special is MS promised not to sue Novell cutomers.
Re:How can the GPL v3 change this (Score:4, Informative)
That's because it can't.
Novell is not giving their customers any rights beyond those Novell or anybody else has. If there is a valid MS patent, suddenly nobody has the right to distribute or use the code.
THe only thing special is MS promised not to sue Novell cutomers
Mmmh no !
Nobody has the right to distribute or use the code IF MS says so.
The problem is that if most of the base OS becomes GPLv3, and Novell uses it, it will pass any patent related agreement (like "promise not to sue") to every FOSS users of the software that has the problem. This would break their contract, or prevent them from using the GPLv3 software.
As most of the code in a distro like Suse comes from outside, they're in for a rude awakening then.
Re: (Score:2)
No patent license = no distribution.
Novell does not give the "promise not to sue" to their customers. That is the key issue wrt the GPL. Novell is unable to provide this promise to their customers, but so is every other GPL software distributer.
Really Novell is not doing anything with the GPL code that other distributers aren't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am beginning to get the impression that FSF is trying to introduce software licenses with more conditions than Microsoft's. Why will Novell having patent protection for some of their software preclude them from distributing
Too late? (Score:2)
If Novell has already signed a binding contract, they may not be able to turn back. In that case, they will have to stick with Microsoft for better or worse.
From the outside, we will probably not see if they are stuck or just stubborn
Don't stick a FORK in Novell yet (Score:2)
FSF's plans for GPL3 have been pretty controversial in some says, and Novell might not be the only ones who end up saying they don't want it. Who says the GPL2 releases of userland tools will freeze? This is Free Software, people, and anyone can maintain it, including a multimillion dollar company and all the other people who don't like GPL3. All of FSF's software may be headed for a fork.
Re:Don't stick a FORK in Novell yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a problem, once every GNU software goes GPLv3, they won't need Novell to do the same, mark my word.
Who says the GPL2 releases of userland tools will freeze?
Every people that know about them and works with them. A fork on these would be a HUGE painful task.
This is Free Software, people, and anyone can maintain it, including a multimillion dollar company and all the other people who don't like GPL3. All of FSF's software may be headed for a fork
I think you don't have any idea of the task at hand. Anyway, a fork is not a bad thing.
But if you really believe that all the people out of the MS-Novell deal will contribute to software with a license (GPLv2) that will only help Novell, with risk of a lawsuit as a reward, you're again in for a very rude awakening. I bet all these GPLv2 sofware will go GPLv3 quick, so that it doesn't happen !
Perens' Assumption (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It will specifically address these kind of deals, by the FSF attorney's own mouth.
We're just waiting for it to be written.
and secondly, all the contributors to GCC and other software may just fork it and remain on GPL 2
You're living on denial now ? So you really believe all the contributors, most of them screwed by this deal, will stay GPLv2 to stay screwed ?
Wow, you really think FOSS community are some
Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
The next shot will be when Microsoft starts making contributions to the kernel, and creating their own FSF-free Linux distro, as the only distro which is blessed by Microsoft (and interoperates with it). This is the next logical step of embrace and extend. IMHO, it's a major screw-
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He originally made 2 arguments; as I understand, the first was a simple error of fact which he no longer pursues:
1)GPL3 makes you give up all your private keys => "Developers would never have any privacy".
This isn't true - you only have to give up a private key which you used to sign code, if the hardware will only boot that signed code. This is essentially a ban on hardware which runs open code but cannot be modified.
2)GPL
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. They are required to give up Linus' key, but they can't, because they don't own Linus' key. In short, they're screwed.
I think a proper analogy for this would be if I owned a nice piece of land by a river. It was the only peice of land by the river that was usable. I sign a contract with you to sell it to you for 6 million dollars. Then someone else offered me 7 million dollars. Being the foolish reta
microsoft has just done that already! (Score:5, Interesting)
open source is forging ahead in a lot of things. novell has 2 of the brigtest and hardworking team in them (suse and ximian), what better way to scuttle the open source army's healthy progress! imagine if kde 4 was already out in time for vista (no, they aren't in the same market). things would have looked good for a lot of enterprises to go for solid products like novell desktop with say all the gloss of kde 4. i don't know how this war is heading/ shaping, and also what microsoft's plans are - but one thing's for sure - they have won the battle number one. they've split the community. it upto us in the community to close the ranks, regroup and look for the best possible solution, i wouldnt want novell to go down and taking suse and ximian along with them!
Stallman saw this coming!!! (Score:2)
...Or the first if you're jewish...
Oh come on, IT'S FUNNY!
Wakey, Wakey (Score:2)
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9955615279.html [linux-watch.com]
If only a handful of developers move to the GPL3, and that looks to be the case, it's the GPL3 that won't matter. Yes, some of their code, most noticeably gcc, will be GPL3. But again, so what? It's also under the GPL2, Linus and other practical open-source developers will keep using the old version and fork their own.
Perens
Re: (Score:2)
glibc is LGPL (Score:2)
that's the best tag I've seen all day (Score:2)
Bruce Perens has a petition to send to Novell (Score:2)
http://techp.org/petition/show/1 [techp.org]
I don't get it... (Score:2)
Any word from Linus on GPL3 now? (Score:2)
Re:FSF owns what? (Score:5, Informative)
All the GNU tools bash, cp, mv, rm, etc have copyrights owned by the FSF. if you donate code to those projects you are "encouraged" to donate the copyrights to the FSF. Samba, Linux kernel, and other tools have their copyrights assigned to various other people.
the FSF is the single largest copyright holder of GPL software. IBM is working on doing the same thing with their software donations, and if Sun GPL's Java and Open Solaris then they will jump in the pool as well.
Re: (Score:2)
What I wanted to line out is, even if they "own" it, after being GPLv2 licensed, anybody can use it under GPLv2 terms. And only if all that tools get GPLv3 licensed AND contributions are done, Novell gets into trouble.
But I am not sure if all projects will do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only partial maintenance burden (Score:2)
In the closed source world, the source for the fix would not be available so it would require significant reverse-engineering to figure out the changes (even if you were legally allowed to modify and redistribute the code). The open source m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I suppose that if it's simple enough.... "hello, world" still works, and that's been decades, but once things start getting at all complex things change.
Re:Only partial maintenance burden (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, and anyone who has ever had to maintain an incompatible fork with a Free Software project knows how difficult and time consuming that can be. In the end Novell will likely be forced to maintain their own fork of nearly all of the GNU tools, a considerable burden. Novell's competitors (ie Red Hat) won't be forced to accept this same burden. Novell already has the added burden of maintaining Netware and other pieces of commercial software. Maintaining versions of GNU software is going to add to its expenses.
More importantly, don't be surprised if Free Software projects start rejecting code from Novell engineers out of hand. After all, under its agreement Novell's customers are safe from infringing on Microsoft's patents, but everyone else's customers are potentially at risk. Anything that Novell engineers contribute has to be judged on that fact. Novell could easily inject software that is covered by Microsoft's patents into Free Software projects knowing that its customers are safe.
It boggles the mind that Novell's executives could take such a large step without talking to its partners in the Free Software community.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if Novell has actually been making significant contributions, this will be a poor decision on the part of the free software projects that take that position unless there's some real reason to believe that Novell is going to deliberately put patent-infringing code in Linux.
Perhaps MS is relying on the F/OSS's communities emotional reaction to this issue to slow down future Linux devel
Re: (Score:2)
If Novell has been making significant contributions, then this will be a sad loss. But necessary.
If you think this is purely an emotional
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only partial maintenance burden (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Novell could abandon the codebase and customer base they bought for $210,000,000 and start over with BSD.
However, their shareholders might start questioning the decision making processes of their management.
To abandon that kind of investment, and the time and money invested in porting their network apps to linux and start over with BSD might very well cost them more money than Microsoft paid them in the first place.
Wouldn't be total abandonment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But note that Darwin uses the gcc under the GPL, and doesn't try to impose non-GPL acceptable conditions on the use of GPL code. Novell doesn't appear to have that option.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually all the orginal developers will be dead no matter what license is used. As for having "no spec, no design" that's either already true of the current code or it's not. Is GNU planning on creating more documentation once they convert to GPLv3?
Re:FSF owns what? (Score:5, Insightful)
And more importantly, gcc, binutils and glibc. Good luck to Novell to maintain those all by themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Sun did already GPLed Java, so that is already the case.
Open Solaris is open source, and Sun also owns its copyrights. It just ins't GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't it irrelevant to Novell whether bash is relicensed under GPL3? Bash isn't a library, and Novell isn't linking to it. Likewise, somebody pointed out, in another reply, that glibc's copyright is owned by the FSF, but glibc's license is LGPL, so again, I don't see why this would matter to Novell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they want to distribute it. And to distribute versions released next year, they must agree to the GPL v3. Which they can't do because of the Microsoft agreement.
So, they either have to maintain their own Novell bash shell, or remove bash from their Linux distribution. Either way, compatibility issues may ensue.
Re:FSF owns what? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it does. FSF owns the copyright on the essential GNU software (coreutils, compiler, etc).
GPLv3 forbids deals like this, so it is illegal for Novell to distribute any software under GPLv3. Therefore they will have to stick with the last versions released under GPLv2.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The FSF is the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org], and the owner of the majority of the copyrights on GNU software and the stuff in lots of Linux distributions. It isn't some nebulous movement.
Yes, Novell can do all they want with the OLD code as long as they respect the copyrights. Novell does not have the resources to maintain GPLv2 versions of everything that moves to v3. The point of GNU/Linux is that the community does a lot of the work, not just one company. Novell can't replace that and if
Re: (Score:2)
FSF upgrade the license of its open source software to Gplv3 -> Novell can't use them (incompatible with MS agreement), so they are stuck with the last versions licensed with gplv2 -> They now have to maintain it themselves.
The software whose FSF holds the copyright includes gcc, binutils and glibc, so good luck to Novell with that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The end of the world is not nigh (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF can't *retroactively* change the licencing, so Novell can continue to use current versions of GPL v.2 software, BUT, what the FSF can do, and is apparently planning to do, is to change the licence on all the software they own copyright to (presumably including gcc, glibc) from GPL v.2 to GPL v.3. Novell will then be forced to choose to continue using the old frozen GPL v.2 versions, or to keep up with the everyone else and use the newer GPL v.3 versions which would force them (or rather Microsoft) to back out of the Microsoft deal because of the patent implications forced by GPL v.3.
Owning glibc puts FSF in a pretty powerful position, since even if Linus is keeping the kernel under GPL v.2, the kernel is in of itself useless without glibc, and any kernel enhancements would be useless without userland (glibc) support. Of couse it's nt just glibc - the majority of Linux userland is GNU/FSF.
Re: (Score:2)
See: http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono / libc.html#Copying [gnu.org]
For the most part, I agree with the rest of what you are saying. SuSE will continue to be extremely relevant as long as they continue to employ high-profile Open Source developers, and their developers continue to contributed valuable code that is accepted by upstream providers. That is the sign t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The end of the world is not nigh (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As has been stated many times, Novell can indeed continue to distribute software under the GPLv2. But as the FSF (which owns the copyrights on a lot of software that is critical to any linux distribution, such as the compiler) moves their software to the GPLv3, this new license forbids Novell from distributing such software because of the
Re: (Score:2)
Not gonna happen. Unlike many OS projects, Linus doesn't demand that anyone working on the code assigns their copyright to him (or some other neutral organisation).
Therefore, the entire kernel is a mess of copyrights all over. And some of the things in there were written by people who have sinced passed away, other bits were writte
Re: (Score:2)
Then you have to re-implement all the code that you can't get relicensed, either because you can't track down th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/25/ 2135222 [slashdot.org] mentioned that there are possible incompatibilities between the DFSF and GPL3. Have they been resolved?
Before asking if they are resolved, you should ask "do they exist ?". Seems to me it's the first step.
There's no point of asking if a non-existant incompatibility is resolved, is there ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The latest in-depth discussion I could find on debian-legal is this one from July: link [google.com]
The gist of it is that most of the proposed GPL3 seems OK, there are only a few problematic clauses. This specific message by Francisco Poli has an in-depth analysis: link [google.com]